skip to main content
research-article

Graph Logics with Rational Relations: The Role of Word Combinatorics

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 May 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Graph databases make use of logics that combine traditional first-order features with navigation on paths, in the same way logics for model checking do. However, modern applications of graph databases impose a new requirement on the expressiveness of the logics: they need comparing labels of paths based on word relations (such as prefix, subword, or subsequence). This has led to the study of logics that extend basic graph languages with features for comparing labels of paths based on regular relations or the strictly more powerful rational relations. The evaluation problem for the former logic is decidable (and even tractable in data complexity), but already extending this logic with such a common rational relation as subword or suffix makes evaluation undecidable. In practice, however, it is rare to have the need for such powerful logics. Therefore, it is more realistic to study the complexity of less expressive logics that still allow comparing paths based on practically motivated rational relations. Here we concentrate on the most basic languages, which extend graph pattern logics with path comparisons based only on suffix, subword, or subsequence. We pinpoint the complexity of evaluation for each one of these logics, which shows that all of them are decidable in elementary time (Pspace or NExptime). Furthermore, the extension with suffix is even tractable in data complexity (but the other two are not). In order to obtain our results we establish a link between the evaluation problem for graph logics and two important problems in word combinatorics: word equations with regular constraints and longest common subsequence.

References

  1. Parosh Aziz Abdulla, Bengt Jonsson, Marcus Nilsson, and Mayank Saksena. 2004. A survey of regular model checking. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3170. 348--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Habib Abdulrab and Jean-Pierre Pécuchet. 1989. Solving word equations. J. Symb. Comput. 8, 5 (1989), 499--521. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Renzo Angles and Claudio Gutiérrez. 2008. Survey of graph database models. ACM Comput. Surv. 40, 1 (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Kemafor Anyanwu, Angela Maduko, and Amit P. Sheth. 2007. SPARQ2L: Towards support for subgraph extraction queries in rdf databases. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’07). 797--806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Pablo Barceló. 2013. Querying graph databases. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’13). 175--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Pablo Barceló, Diego Figueira, and Leonid Libkin. 2013. Graph logics with rational relations. Logic. Methods Comput. Sci. 9, 3 (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Pablo Barceló, Leonid Libkin, Anthony Widjaja Lin, and Peter T. Wood. 2012. Expressive languages for path queries over graph-structured data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 37, 4 (2012), 31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Michael Benedikt, Leonid Libkin, Thomas Schwentick, and Luc Segoufin. 2003. Definable relations and first-order query languages over strings. J. ACM 50, 5 (2003), 694--751. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jean Berstel. 1979. Transductions and Context-Free Languages. Teubner Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Guillaume Blin, Laurent Bulteau, Minghui Jiang, Pedro J. Tejada, and Stéphane Vialette. 2012. Hardness of longest common subsequence for sequences with bounded run-lengths. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM’12). 138--148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Achim Blumensath and Erich Grädel. 2000. Automatic structures. In 15th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS) 2000. 51--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Egon Börger, Erich Grädel, and Yuri Gurevich. 1997. The Classical Decision Problem. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2000. Containment of conjunctive regular path queries with inverse. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’00). 176--185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2002. Rewriting of regular expressions and regular path queries. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 64, 3 (2002), 443--465. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Edmund Clarke, Orna Grumberg, and Doron Peled. 1979. Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Isabel F. Cruz, Alberto O. Mendelzon, and Peter T. Wood. 1987. A graphical query language supporting recursion. In Proceedings of SIGMOD 1987. 323--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Volker Diekert, Claudio Gutiérrez, and Christian Hagenah. 2005. The existential theory of equations with rational constraints in free groups is PSPACE-complete. Inf. Comput. 202, 2 (2005), 105--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S Eilenberg, C. C Elgot, and J. C Shepherdson. 1969. Sets recognized by n-tape automata. J. Algebra 13, 4 (1969), 447--464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Diego Figueira and Leonid Libkin. 2015. Path logics for querying graphs: Combining expressiveness and efficiency. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2015). 329--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Christiane Frougny and Jacques Sakarovitch. 1993. Synchronized rational relations of finite and infinite words. Theor. Comput. Sci. 108, 1 (1993), 45--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Dan Gusfield. 1997. Algorithms on Strings, Trees, and Sequences: Computer Science and Computational Biology. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lucian Ilie. 1999. Subwords and power-free words are not expressible by word equations. Fundam. Inform. 38, 1-2 (1999), 109--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Juhani Karhumäki, Filippo Mignosi, and Wojciech Plandowski. 2000. The expressibility of languages and relations by word equations. J. ACM 47, 3 (2000), 483--505. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Dexter Kozen. 1977. Lower bounds for natural proof systems. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1977). 254--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. André Lentin. 1972. Equations in free monoids. In ICALP. 67--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. M. Lothaire. 1997. Combinatorics on Words. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. David Maier. 1978. The complexity of some problems on subsequences and supersequences. J. ACM 25, 2 (1978), 322--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. G.S. Makanin. 1977. The problem of solvability of equations in free semigroups. Math USSR SBornik 32 (1977), 129--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Wojciech Plandowski. 2004. Satisfiability of word equations with constants is in PSPACE. J. ACM 51, 3 (2004), 483--496. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jacques Sakarovitch. 2009. Elements of Automata Theory. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Klaus U. Schulz. 1990. Makanin’s algorithm for word equations: Two improvements and a generalization. In Word Equations and Related Topics, First International Workshop (IWWERT’90). 85--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Anthony Widjaja To and Leonid Libkin. 2010. Algorithmic metatheorems for decidable LTL model checking over infinite systems. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures (FOSSACS’10). 221--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Moshe Y. Vardi. 1982. The complexity of relational query languages (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’82). 137--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Peter T. Wood. 2012. Query languages for graph databases. SIGMOD Rec. 41, 1 (2012), 50--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Fang Yu, Tevfik Bultan, and Oscar H. Ibarra. 2011. Relational string verification using multi-track automata. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 22, 8 (2011), 1909--1924. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Graph Logics with Rational Relations: The Role of Word Combinatorics

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
        ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 18, Issue 2
        April 2017
        306 pages
        ISSN:1529-3785
        EISSN:1557-945X
        DOI:10.1145/3091105
        • Editor:
        • Orna Kupferman
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 May 2017
        • Accepted: 1 January 2017
        • Revised: 1 September 2016
        • Received: 1 February 2016
        Published in tocl Volume 18, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader